hey, shall we pick the one with the most money; or the one who can dig up the most dirt on the other? perhaps we should vote for the one who throws out the better insults, or who can create the best jokes? yeah why don't we choose one of them for president instead of the average joe who just want to make our country a better place?
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
As for your first question, I am not sure where it is coming from, but I would say that picking the person with the most money has some merit. A person who has made a lot of money has figured something out about the world others have not; you do not just become a billionaire by chance, and millions of people try for it and fail.
With regards to the US presidential race, for example, there is a certain logic behind voting for Bloomberg based solely on him being the richest candidate from the pool. If he has managed his personal finances so incredibly well, then it is reasonable to expect that he will manage public finances well as well. To what end is another question, but all I am saying is that there is a certain logic in it. Not the one I would follow, but nonetheless.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lot of power    personal finances   better place   lot of money  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
So El Chapo or Escobar for president? Someone who won the lottery? Corporate robbers too? It is laughable...
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: El Chapo    Corporate robbers   Escobar   president  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Did you not read the last two sentences of my post? I am clearly not endorsing this kind of decision-making; I am merely saying that there is some logic behind it. I do not think this is a reasonable way to choose who to vote for, but assuming, for example, that this is the only piece of information you have about the candidates and you still want to vote for someone, voting for the richest one of them seems like a valid choice.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: reasonable way    only piece of information   kind of decision-making   example  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: poor people    means of money   power   money  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
Absolutely, but statistically choosing the person with the most money will mostly choose someone who has earned their money.
It is true that rich people might be desensitized to the plight of poorer people, but, again, in some ways that could be a good thing. People who put emotions before cold pragmatic logic have the highest potential to do a lot of irreparable damage. It might seem reasonable at the first glance to elect average Joe who will know what common people go through every day - but does that Joe know how to address it properly, given his inexperience with finances, ignorance with regards to economics, world politics, etc.? I do not think so.
There is no easy answer to this questions. It is like picking the right stock investment strategy: there are millions of those, and nobody knows which works the best. I have seen all kinds of advice from stock experts, including even printing out names of stocks and throwing darts at them randomly, investing in whatever you hit. The reasoning being that the market expectations are already adjusted for, with all the risks and potential gains included in the price, hence, whatever you invest in, you will ride the same market wave.
Same with election strategy. Someone did an analysis once and found that picking a random person from the population is likely to lead to a better outcome for the country, than voting in a systematic process... But many did similar analyses and found that it does not work. There is no perfect strategy, and especially given how little one single vote affects the outcome, the whole thing might be pointless from the individual perspective. In order to significantly affect the election outcome, people should unite in large groups and vote as a group - but that has its own downsides, given the tendency of those groups over time to pervert the initial goals.
Whatever voting strategy you pick, make sure that it is based on logic, some logic. Better have flawed/wrong logic, than just operate on emotions and become influenced by carefully crafted political narratives. As they say in chess, "It is better to have a bad plan than no plan whatsoever". Granted, consciously choosing to vote based on your emotions also has some logic behind it; you could say, for example, that the politician offering the most emotionally appealing narrative has won the meritocratic competition and, hence, deserves to be elected.
At the end of the day, every voting strategy, including the absence of one, is a strategy.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
the pro Illegal Immigration crowd,
the pro Open Border crowd,
the pro Sanctuary City crowd,
the pro Black Lives Matters crowd,
the pro Criminal, and Offenders crowd,
the pro Gun Extremists crowd,
the pro Abortion crowd,
the pro Socialism, or pro Liberal crowds,
the pro Illegal Drug crowd,
the pro Free College tuition crowd,
and the pro Medicare for all crowd.
The Medicare for All Act of 2019
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.46  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
Problem is a country is not a business and the President's role is not managerial but that of a helmsman or pilot... Running a country as a business is a bad idea...
https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.04  
  Sources: 3  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: President's role    Problem   country   business  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
Eh, no, that is not true at all. Plans and strategies in chess take your opponent's possible moves into account, obviously. The point here is that you need to have some sort of a plan on what you are going to do in the nearest future; if you just move pieces around and only defend from basic threats, then you will not win a game against anyone who does more than that. Similarly, if you just vote whatever your gut feeling suggests and do not have a more solid plan in mind, then those politicians who do have a plan will use your gut feeling against you.
Intelligence in various fields is not necessarily a boon, and there have been countless examples of rulers with deep knowledge in a lot of different fields who could not put that knowledge to a good use and ruined their countries. Lenin is a good example of that, an outlandishly intelligent and knowledgeable guy whose intelligence, sadly, did not translate into practical actions.
I think that something else here is needed, some kind of a "street smartness", in conjunction with assertiveness and sharp knowledge in some selected topics. Politics is a dirty business, and you need to know how to navigate it without losing yourself in the process.
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: day    nbsp   way   chess  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
The worst part about his lineup, is that besides being no answer with which I am completely satisfied with (thus is elections) it kind of seems like it is coming down to a rock-paper-scissors kind of scenario with these 3.
- If Bloomberg runs against Trump, there is a good chance he will beat him because all except Trump's loyal base see Bloomberg as a moderate, and besides he has more money.
- If Sanders runs against Trump, many people will refrain from voting for Sanders on the grounds that he is a Socialist, so many people might prefer to stick with the devil they know.
- With Sanders running against Bloomberg in the primaries, Sanders is dominating Bloomberg because his promises are closer to what most of the DNC wants.
So, that's how I think it is.Blockhead-Oligarch-Socialist- shoot!
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Bernie Sanders    Michel Bloomberg   Bloomberg runs   money.If Sanders runs  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra